From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3975D13877A for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:18:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97A35E087C; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (mail-vc0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5BE9E085C for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:18:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ik5so1467848vcb.20 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:18:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WsTzvi6WJI7Y3Bmh7M35a9haYfv0fUd5o7dwz8B26Z0=; b=kELaFBrl3knkdJr+laLmHpyzK0ZPapRoWLKFo8GRUdQtqWJNwx2uJJmetnXQKJTiXS OnBx+FOHTduSJMpMD9TJ9ThcMm14MyC4ne/1Txh1rXEx/T5R3jo37AFFqF3KMrxkIExO nWrP+RTBfXrF2HMO5UnsXSbd6pPfFiC382CSFIdGwm+BdCrYdZHCu1ybjsm4ws83YB1x uOSXJDktandzQhnwUYnRzfAVlmdYH6X8XrFqAdN9THeONt/Hc1imV9AzJ4slPBwAfrbO w6jFu7JfYMg0fBQCHH+tM4wZ5I2Ou38aZm/bejjioLSlTRjF7B37tSWYEIPlI/DMXZjr xiRg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.105.201 with SMTP id u9mr1590438vco.11.1406719102886; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.8.229 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:18:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53D8A0E6.8000000@gentoo.org> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com> <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org> <53CE6CED.1060300@gentoo.org> <20140723004441.2e68c0b0@gentoo.org> <53D26D58.3000004@gentoo.org> <53D27343.6020009@gentoo.org> <20140726134907.621d8892@googlemail.com> <53D4E5A0.2020403@gentoo.org> <20140730084531.14a288fb@home.puleglot> <53D8847B.2070401@gentoo.org> <53D8A0E6.8000000@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:18:22 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uwwtsTQOSiuepp8SWqDY1C7yJ5o Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 1168afd0-db56-4a60-8298-6921c7e29cad X-Archives-Hash: fe9eff2d3717a1f08f964cd3a23fe72e On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:38 AM, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 7/30/14, 7:36 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> If it's 2-3 packages out of ~300, I'd rather pick them out than >> revision bump all ~300 for the 2-3. Or not pick them out at all >> and let users do the rebuild (which is the obvious answer >> to the output you posted) > > Peter Stuge pointed it out already, but I also wanted to say rebuilding > the affected packages is not obvious to me either. Sure, but this seems more like a portage bug (or at least a portage output bug) rather than a fundamental issue. After all, there was no true block - just a need for a rebuild. I heard prerm as a reason why dynamic deps can break (especially with slot operator deps, though obviously it also breaks for non-slot-operator deps that should be expressed as such), though as has been pointed out those will break unless we unmerge and remerge all reverse-deps on every upgrade. Are there other issues. To be honest I was expecting a plethora of issues that can go wrong with dynamic deps, but so far I'm hearing something like 2-3, and if that really is all that there is then this may be a solvable issue. Rich